I also reiterate; with both alcohol and drugs, when both have been banned in the US, we manufactured them domestically on the black market. Why this trend would be any different with firearms is something you have not proven.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is an indicator!

I can't believe I'm having to explain this.

You can make a lot of money manufacturing illegal consumables, because you have a continuing market.You can't make a lot of money manufacturing illegal firearms in a civilized society, because 1) the market is small to begin with, and 2) once you've sold one or two per person, they tend to last a long time.

Yeah, I see the democrats working rather quickly to repeal the PATRIOT act.

In fact, Sen. Feinstein was a rather ardent supporter of the PATRIOT act. And pretty much anything Hollywood wanted. And disarmament. Which is why I maintain she's clearly an authoritarian.

Her joint defense of the FISA Amendments renewal with Saxby Chambliss was the most astonishing case of bipartisan fuckwittery that I've seen in a LONG time. Independent of her party affiliation, Diane Feinstein is definitely an authoritarian.

Yeah, it is too bad. If you find me a libertarian candidate that supports health care for all, marriage equality at a federal level, and strict financial regulation I'll vote for them next time.

You should move to Oregon.

I want to move back to the PacNW, but unfortunately my employer is located in southern California. They just aren't going to up and move the largest satellite factory in the world. You should let them know.

Nothing to be worried about though, most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

Right, those gun owners sure threatened him.

.Darien wrote:

Yeah you don't get to call yourself a law-abiding constructive member of society if you're advocating breaking the law and/or violence because someone dared to restrict your access to guns.

Weasel words. First off, "constructive" is straight up trolling. Secondly, there's a connotation that goes along with the term "law-abiding", which is that one shows regard for others and doesn't act to harm others. If the law arbitrarily outlaws something, certain people may not be literally law-abiding but they may still fit the connotation of the term.

BOZEMAN — A 14-year-old boy accused of bringing two handguns to a Montana high school told authorities he wanted to show people "you don't need an assault rifle to shoot up a school," prosecutors said in court filings.

The documents say the boy, who is not being named because he is a minor, was considering using the guns in a shooting at Harrison High School "for political reasons."

"(He) stated that he wanted to prove to people that you don't need an assault rifle to shoot up a school," the documents say. "(He) was going to show people that it could be done with a couple of handguns."

President Barack Obama and several Democratic members of Congress are proposing stricter gun-control measures in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting in which 20 children and six adults were killed. Among the measures being proposed are an assault weapons ban and a limit on the size of ammunition magazines.

The boy showed two students the guns on Jan. 25 at the high school about 45 miles west of Bozeman. One of them told school officials, Harrison Public School Superintendent Fred Hofman said.

The boy was arrested after officials found a .357 Magnum, a .22 caliber handgun and 47 rounds of ammunition in the boy's backpack. The television station reported the boy allegedly stole the guns from his father.

The witness reportedly said in her statement the boy threatened to kill her if she told a teacher what she'd seen.

"It took a lot of courage on her part to come forward with the information and I'm very glad she did," Hofman said.

The boy had a detention hearing Monday in Virginia City before Youth Court Judge Loren Tucker. The judge entered a plea of "not true" to a criminal endangerment charge.

Yet another responsible gun owning father. Or not. Hopefully he is prosecuted in addition to his sun.

Overreact much before you know the facts.

You're right, hey may not be the light of his life.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm. So in addition to the planned (hopefully pretend, but very possibly not) non-assault weapon shooting by the son being grounds for throwing the kid in juvie for a while, the father, if he owned those weapons, should be charged as an accessory to an attempted school shooting.

Yet another responsible gun owning father. Or not. Hopefully he is prosecuted in addition to his sun.

Overreact much before you know the facts.

You're right, hey may not be the light of his life.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm.

Trust me. There is no way to keep a determined 14 year old from getting whatever they want short of not having it anywhere on your property.Of course you may think just having a gun is grounds for prosecution...I take that back. Sorry for the dig.

Yet another responsible gun owning father. Or not. Hopefully he is prosecuted in addition to his sun.

Overreact much before you know the facts.

You're right, hey may not be the light of his life.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm.

Trust me. There is no way to keep a determined 14 year old from getting whatever they want short of not having it anywhere on your property.Of course you may think just having a gun is grounds for prosecution...I take that back. Sorry for the dig.

Seems like this father was negligent in educating his son about firearms at the very least. Unfortunately there's not crime in indoctrinating your child to be a crazy. I suppose if the father can prove the firearms were locked up, and he never gave the combo to his son, then the father should be free from being an attempted school shooting accomplice. Frankly, the whole thing reeks of SRB Obama's coming for your guns, I wouldn't be surprised if the father was in on it. I mean the kid is just a juvie. Under 18, wash out clean.

Secondly, there's a connotation that goes along with the term "law-abiding", which is that one shows regard for others and doesn't act to harm others. If the law arbitrarily outlaws something, certain people may not be literally law-abiding but they may still fit the connotation of the term.

It's a meaningless term - the gun lobby uses it to mean 'obeying any laws I agree with'. You can't even claim it means "shows regard for others", when so many of the gun lobby conveniently overlap with those who are anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, and anti-welfare.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm.

Trust me. There is no way to keep a determined 14 year old from getting whatever they want short of not having it anywhere on your property.Of course you may think just having a gun is grounds for prosecution...I take that back. Sorry for the dig.

Yet another responsible gun owning father. Or not. Hopefully he is prosecuted in addition to his sun.

Overreact much before you know the facts.

You're right, hey may not be the light of his life.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm.

Trust me. There is no way to keep a determined 14 year old from getting whatever they want short of not having it anywhere on your property.Of course you may think just having a gun is grounds for prosecution...I take that back. Sorry for the dig.

Seems like this father was negligent in educating his son about firearms at the very least. Unfortunately there's not crime in indoctrinating your child to be a crazy. I suppose if the father can prove the firearms were locked up, and he never gave the combo to his son, then the father should be free from being an attempted school shooting accomplice. Frankly, the whole thing reeks of SRB Obama's coming for your guns, I wouldn't be surprised if the father was in on it. I mean the kid is just a juvie. Under 18, wash out clean.

Why is this even arguing about? The father is the adult, his responsibility to keep them safe and away from kids. He didn't and/or can't, throw him in jail and or revoke his gun ownership privileges.

Yet another responsible gun owning father. Or not. Hopefully he is prosecuted in addition to his sun.

Overreact much before you know the facts.

You're right, hey may not be the light of his life.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm. So in addition to the planned (hopefully pretend, but very possibly not) non-assault weapon shooting by the son being grounds for throwing the kid in juvie for a while, the father, if he owned those weapons, should be charged as an accessory to an attempted school shooting.

I don't think you understand how the law works. If somebody steals my car from my driveway and uses it as part of a bank heist, I'm not charged with accessory to the heist. The level you want to charge gun owners with would cause society to completely fuck up if you applied the same logic across the board.

Yet another responsible gun owning father. Or not. Hopefully he is prosecuted in addition to his sun.

Overreact much before you know the facts.

You're right, hey may not be the light of his life.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm. So in addition to the planned (hopefully pretend, but very possibly not) non-assault weapon shooting by the son being grounds for throwing the kid in juvie for a while, the father, if he owned those weapons, should be charged as an accessory to an attempted school shooting.

I don't think you understand how the law works. If somebody steals my car from my driveway and uses it as part of a bank heist, I'm not charged with accessory to the heist. The level you want to charge gun owners with would cause society to completely fuck up if you applied the same logic across the board.

This doesn't apply to people that are in the household. And if the father doesn't want to be held liable, he would still need to press charges (at least in the event of a car being taken by a resident of the household) against who took and used the car for criminal activities.

Yet another responsible gun owning father. Or not. Hopefully he is prosecuted in addition to his sun.

Overreact much before you know the facts.

You're right, hey may not be the light of his life.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm.

Trust me. There is no way to keep a determined 14 year old from getting whatever they want short of not having it anywhere on your property.Of course you may think just having a gun is grounds for prosecution...I take that back. Sorry for the dig.

Seems like this father was negligent in educating his son about firearms at the very least. Unfortunately there's not crime in indoctrinating your child to be a crazy. I suppose if the father can prove the firearms were locked up, and he never gave the combo to his son, then the father should be free from being an attempted school shooting accomplice. Frankly, the whole thing reeks of SRB Obama's coming for your guns, I wouldn't be surprised if the father was in on it. I mean the kid is just a juvie. Under 18, wash out clean.

Why is this even arguing about? The father is the adult, his responsibility to keep them safe and away from kids. He didn't and/or can't, throw him in jail and or revoke his gun ownership privileges.

Don't ask me. Evidently because I'm concerned about he public health implications of accidental firearms injuries and deaths (injuries cost taxpayers $6M a day) I am automatically a gun grabber.

A recent perspective I have been introduced to, a public health perspective, realizes very few that claim to be interested in reducing gun violence cannot stop themselves from classifying everyone into pro and anti gun. From my experiences in this thread, I think it is clear those that self-identify as pro-gun are less likely to compromise or open to futures solutions. That's my current opinion. I'm sure I'll be crucified/lambasted for this opinion, even though I've come out in favor of unregulated long arms in exchange for restrictions on handguns. I've acknowledged the guns under the AWB don't really matter, it's simple handguns. But the gun owning public dismisses it offhand.

Yet another responsible gun owning father. Or not. Hopefully he is prosecuted in addition to his sun.

Overreact much before you know the facts.

You're right, hey may not be the light of his life.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm. So in addition to the planned (hopefully pretend, but very possibly not) non-assault weapon shooting by the son being grounds for throwing the kid in juvie for a while, the father, if he owned those weapons, should be charged as an accessory to an attempted school shooting.

I don't think you understand how the law works. If somebody steals my car from my driveway and uses it as part of a bank heist, I'm not charged with accessory to the heist. The level you want to charge gun owners with would cause society to completely fuck up if you applied the same logic across the board.

Since there isn't a standard liability on firearms, your homeowners insurance would be liable to cover the damages caused by your son stealing your pistol. Unless there is an outside civil suit. I suspect you would claim refuge under your homeowners insurance.

Still, no evidence has been presented that the firearm owner in this case, the father, actually secured his firearm.

Still, no evidence has been presented that the firearm owner in this case, the father, actually secured his firearm.

Or didn't secure the firearm. Or that the law requires you to secure it. Again if I leave my car unlocked and a bank robber gets in, or my son gets in and steals it to rob a bank, I'm not charged with aiding in the bank robby because of that.

I will admit -- if a firearm becomes banned, why not confiscate? It is banned because people have deemed it a problem. Hence, it is will a problem if you buy it in the future or the past.

Yes, I am in favor of taking your now-banned guns(whichever those may be), and I don't really see why it's a big deal to say that.

For those that point at criminals having them, I would point out that criminals got theirs from a lawful citizen. So, stopping the source and destroying the reserves will have impact over time.

It is a problem because it is illegal for the federal government to steal from its citizens. If you make an ex post facto law about firearms, you're essentially making people into criminals who never had any criminal intent.

Let me tell a little story that is a decent analogy to this whole debate.

Several years ago I spent a good deal of time tracking down a Remington 597 in .17hmr. This is a semi-auto rimfire target rifle, with a cart designed for putting holes in paper. (Arguably) 17 caliber rounds are ONLY good for putting holes in paper, as they lose energy so quickly, and are so light to begin with, that there really is no suitable game for them to be used on, and only an idiot would use something like that on a person.

I spent $405 on the rifle, new, from a special order from a local gun store in Anchorage.

Three months after I bought it, Remington issued a recall on the rifle, and offered to give everyone who bought one of the rifles a $200 refund. That is not enough to replace the gun with something of similar function.

So the gun sits in my closet in a locked case because Remington made a defective rifle, and is only willing to replace half the purchase price, and is unwilling to simply replace the rifle with something equivilant.

This is the same way I view the government doing a "confiscation" of something reasonably purchased. If "fair value," as is required by law, is not given for the confiscated item, it amounts to theft plain and simple. So how does one determine "Fair value"? This is a bit of a thornier issue: I have two guns that are explicitly named in the Feinstein legislation. My Saiga 12 (external magazine fed shotgun. . . that is essentially an AK 47 in 12 gauge) and my Saiga .308 (AK 47 chambered in a more powerful cart) I paid $450 for the .308, and $650 for the saiga 12. Would I be satisfied with that as compensation for either of those guns?

No fucking way. I ALSO bought ~200 dollars in parts for the S.308 and ~300 in magazines for it. (I was legally required to buy at least one of the magazines, btw.) Likewise for the s12, I spent about ~250 in parts, $350 on 3 drum magazines and a box magazine (Again, one of which was legally required), and then there is the $300 slidefire stock. So for $1100 in guns retail, I spent about 1400 in parts as well. And this is discounting things like sights and scopes which can be moved to other firearms. If the .gov offered me $2500 for the pair of firearms, I'd probably take it, but $1100 I would consider an insult.

It's a meaningless term - the gun lobby uses it to mean 'obeying any laws I agree with'. You can't even claim it means "shows regard for others", when so many of the gun lobby conveniently overlap with those who are anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, and anti-welfare.

Like Faramir said, it's a dog whistle. Nothing more.

It's not meaningless. You know its implication, which I clearly stated above. You're using the fact that someone breaks a law to criticize him/her, without regard for the nature of the law. The law is not necessarily moral; following it is not necessarily moral.

Still if the child stole the gun from his father, obviously his father has been negligent in storing the firearm.

Trust me. There is no way to keep a determined 14 year old from getting whatever they want short of not having it anywhere on your property.Of course you may think just having a gun is grounds for prosecution...I take that back. Sorry for the dig.

Are you fucking serious

It's called a safe.

++.

Or a barrel lock, or a quality trigger lock. . . Or multiples of the devices. Safe storage is not a mystery. If you have particularly industrious teens you can even partially disassemble the gun and remove the bolt/firing pin/trigger assembly and store that in a seperate locked location. That's one reason I like bolt action rifles so much, removing the bolt (And thus totally inerting the firearm) takes literally seconds. Generally my hunting rifle is stored with the bolt out.

So another Ddls anecdote: I went into Dick's sporting goods the other day because I needed a gun cleaning kit. (I left my old one in AkLaska.) While there I noticed the gunsafes. The least expensive gun safe there was a 12 rifle safe for. . . $120. At that price there is no reason at all for someone NOT to own one, if they have a sufficient arsenal to warrant it. I'll probably be buying one as soon as I feel out my apt complex for drilling into the studs.

The metal on them is cheap though. . . they're made to deter not stop. One could dremel their way through the metal.

I recently saw a good argument made that law-abiding is a bad term to use, what with the way the law is written making everyone a violator of the law in some fashion every day. A better term to use is peaceable, in that gun owners are not intentionally harming anyone, and merely trying to politely get on with their lives, regardless of what the law says.

This doesn't apply to people that are in the household. And if the father doesn't want to be held liable, he would still need to press charges (at least in the event of a car being taken by a resident of the household)against who took and used the car for criminal activities.

Bold mineYou know we tried that when one of our children hot wired one of our vehicles and went for a ride...the cops laughed.

And now the BATF is in trouble, yet again, for another in a long series of botched operations.Still want this same agency with the name and address of every EBR owner in the country?In the timeless voice of Al Borland from Home Improvement, "I don't think so, Tim."

There's no method that can't be bypassed. Something acceptable to a single individual with no one else in the household may not be adequate when there are others in the house. Codifying specifics as absolute standards imposes a regulatory burden which may not be appropriate in every instance.

There's no method that can't be bypassed. Something acceptable to a single individual with no one else in the household may not be adequate when there are others in the house. Codifying specifics as absolute standards imposes a regulatory burden which may not be appropriate in every instance.

Oh certainly, but there are different requirements for a defensive firearm and something that is only used in the range. In general, something that only comes out for cleaning or at the range belongs in at the very least a locked case, or a safe.

It is a problem because it is illegal for the federal government to steal from its citizens.

You'd think so, but it's not actually that clear cut. See the Gold Clause Cases (1935).

Quote:

If you make an ex post facto law about firearms, you're essentially making people into criminals who never had any criminal intent.

An ex post facto law is one that criminalizes an action that's already taken place. If a law made it a crime to have owned a specific gun in 2012, it'd be an ex post facto law, but if it's go forward it's not.

It is a problem because it is illegal for the federal government to steal from its citizens.

You'd think so, but it's not actually that clear cut. See the Gold Clause Cases (1935).

Quote:

If you make an ex post facto law about firearms, you're essentially making people into criminals who never had any criminal intent.

An ex post facto law is one that criminalizes an action that's already taken place. If a law made it a crime to have owned a specific gun in 2012, it'd be an ex post facto law, but if it's go forward it's not.